Skip to main content
Glama
MarkAC007

mcp-server-scf

by MarkAC007
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scf_list_risks

Read-only

List an organization's risk register ordered by risk code, including scores, treatment status, and acceptance details, with filters for status, level, category, and acceptance state.

Instructions

List the whole risk register (ordered by risk code): scores, treatment status and any acceptance (accepted_by, accepted_at, rationale, expiry, acceptance_state). Filter by status, level, category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_idYesOrganization UUID — obtain from scf_list_organizations
statusNoFilter by treatment status: identified, analysed, treating, treated, accepted or monitoring (sent as the platform's treatment_status)
categoryNoFilter by catalog risk category code, e.g. 'AC' matches R-AC-N
risk_levelNoFilter by inherent risk level, banded by the org's risk profile
acceptance_stateNoAccepted risks only, by their approval: 'approved' (in force), 'expired' (past acceptance_expires_on) or 'unapproved' (accepted with no approval recorded)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv3.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / acceptance_state
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Accepted risks only, by their approval: 'approved' (in force), 'expired' (past acceptance_expires_on) or 'unapproved' (accepted with no approval recorded)",
+  "enum": [
+    "approved",
+    "expired",
+    "unapproved"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / category
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by catalog risk category code, e.g. 'AC' matches R-AC-N",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / page
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 1,
-  "description": "1-indexed page number (default 1)",
-  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / per_page
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 25,
-  "description": "Page size (1–100, default 25)",
-  "maximum": 100,
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / risk_level
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by inherent risk level, banded by the org's risk profile",
+  "enum": [
+    "low",
+    "medium",
+    "high",
+    "critical"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"Filter by treatment status (e.g., 'mitigate', 'accept', 'transfer', 'avoid')"New value: +"Filter by treatment status: identified, analysed, treating, treated, accepted or monitoring (sent as the platform's treatment_status)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "identified",
+  "analysed",
+  "treating",
+  "treated",
+  "accepted",
+  "monitoring"
+]
  2. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing result ordering ('ordered by risk code') and enumerating the acceptance fields returned. It omits pagination/result-size behavior, so it adds real but incomplete behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the returned fields, then the filters — no filler sentences. The parenthetical acceptance-field list is slightly dense and partly redundant with the acceptance_state parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (scores, treatment status, acceptance details), and ordering is stated. What remains unstated is pagination or whether the full register is returned unbounded, which matters for a 'whole register' read but is a minor gap for a read-only list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the enum values, the category code format ('AC' matches R-AC-N) and acceptance_state semantics. The description only echoes status/level/category as filter categories and says nothing about the required org_id or acceptance_state, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the whole risk register') plus scope details — ordering by risk code and returned fields. The word 'whole' plus the filter set signals it is not the per-control listing (scf_get_risks_for_control) or the custom-risk listing, though it never names those siblings explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by enumerating the available filters ('Filter by status, level, category'), which tells an agent what this call is for. It offers no when-not guidance and names no alternative tool for scoped or custom risk reads, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools